You contend that if God is not perfect in the absolute sense, then it "must" mean that there exist other gods more powerful...

Hmmm... How did you arrive at that conclusion?

So, as an example, if the strongest man on Earth, whoever he be, is not "perfectly" the strongest man, if he just have even the slightest flaw, that must therefore mean that there are, of necessity, other men stronger than him?

Really? Are you actually that mentally inflexible that you won't allow one smidgen of error or potential defect?

Ever heard of the proverbial saying "No need to be perfect" ?

The truth is that you don't provide any evidence or sound reasoning as to how you arrive at your conclusions. You just arbitrarily assert your positions. Furthermore, you use very crass language when you are challenged. This suggests that you are insecure in your thought process.

Note there are many types of gods, weak, strong, monkey god, elephant gods, the many gods of the Greeks and other cultures.For all the above gods, there is one master of all gods, i.e. GOD [with a Capital G], the only and 100% perfect God.

By "humility" I mean the theists will not compromise with God's qualities in any way, so the ultimate God-proper must be an uncompromising 100% perfect GOD in every way.

You contend that if God is not perfect in the absolute sense, then it "must" mean that there exist other gods more powerful...

Hmmm... How did you arrive at that conclusion?

This is very logical.If you have x, then x+1 is possible.This one-up claim very common in the children school grounds and other playgrounds.Thus you will have a 1-up god for every god that is claimed to exist.

To avoid the above never ending one-up to infinity, every theists will claim their God is absolutely perfect, so no theist can claim a 1-up God over others.

If you are well versed with the Philosophy of Theology, you would have been aware the ontological God of St. Anselm or Descartes, i.e. God is defined as;"a being than which no greater can exist".see the SEP-Link above

So, as an example, if the strongest man on Earth, whoever he be, is not "perfectly" the strongest man, if he just have even the slightest flaw, that must therefore mean that there are, of necessity, other men stronger than him?

You cannot compare a fallible human to an infallible God.Your example is moot.

Really? Are you actually that mentally inflexible that you won't allow one smidgen of error or potential defect?

Ever heard of the proverbial saying "No need to be perfect" ?

It is not me who is inflexible.I have explained the psychological states of theists is such that one has to end up with the ontological God, i.e. the absolutely perfect being no greater can exists.

The truth is that you don't provide any evidence or sound reasoning as to how you arrive at your conclusions. You just arbitrarily assert your positions. Furthermore, you use very crass language when you are challenged. This suggests that you are insecure in your thought process.

I have to bring in sufficient attention-getters to make the point rational and the point is whether my arguments are sound or not.Have you read the Quran and Hadith to note how the Islamic God [Allah] had condemned [in crude and crass] the God claimed by Christians, Jews and others?

The whole idea of a GOD [illusory and impossible] is a mess of contradictions and dilemmas.I have argued above, God is an impossibility to be real.The idea of God [illusory] is only useful for psychological reasons.I believe theists should suspend judgment for a moment and learn more about their own internal psychological state in regard to their belief in a God [illusory], note Know Thyself [Socrates].

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note there are many types of gods, weak, strong, monkey god, elephant gods, the many gods of the Greeks and other cultures.For all the above gods, there is one master of all gods, i.e. GOD [with a Capital G], the only and 100% perfect God.

This is a very Abrahamic concept and even in that a limited one. At some point in some theologies God became this mathematically perfect being. But many religions have even their chief Gods, like Zeus say, being tempermental, changing their mind, having tantrums, etc. And at some point being 'more powerful than anything else and beyond our understanding' became 'can do anything at all, even if it seems or is illogical, knows everything and so on, all the omni-characteristics. Equating this poor turning in part of a few religions theologies is misrepresenting religion and theism as a whole.

Perfection is an impossibility,God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.Therefore God is an impossibility.

or that you aren't conceiving a version of perfection that meets the criteria for you to believe perfection to be possible.

Note I stated two types of perfection above, i.e. relative and absolute.Relative perfection is possible in reality but not absolute perfect which is limited to reason and thoughts only.

A theist would not want a god that is less perfect, since in this case his/her god would be inferior to other gods which are more perfect or an ontological God, i.e. a god than which no greater perfection can be conceived.

Absolute perfection is an impossibility. Since God [by definition] imperatively must be absolutely perfect, therefore God is an impossibility.

You are not understanding the full context of what they mean by "perfection" and "god". You aren't understanding their language and description, it's metaphorical, not literal.

God is by recognizing self and how to manifest self into reality by will to the extent of what universal law applies. It is a state of balance for self, an individual to appreciate what is and also appreciate what can or could be based off of subjectivity/unique diversity.

It works like this, an individual is merely a fragment of environment or the collective of humanity, similar to how a single bee is an individual away from the hive(collective of bee's), it is similar to a glass puzzle, when separated we are only individual "gods" with limited power but as a collective understanding of self and all of selves, it is the closest thing to "perfection" because it is due to an understanding of what is and what the possibilities are that may be executed if collectively unified as a species/consciousness.

In simple terms, life is not about "finding god" in a literal sense, it's about finding self and then aligning "god" by helping others understand self as well, embracing/executing an understanding of self and diversity is conscious choice to speed up and expand evolution.

So the idea of "perfection" is an understanding of self as a collective species, unifying the hive.. That is why it appears to you as an impossibility and as a "utopia". and the idea of "god" is a glass mirror, fragmented, each individual as a piece of the puzzle, collectively.. the whole image is there and some can see the whole image when they understand them self and how real the subconscious truly is.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

From my perspective, I may be wrong, but Prismatic's claim that absolute perfection is impossible seems ironic, because for his argument to be correct and logically refute the existence of a perfect God, in the form of a syllogism, for which the general consensus is that the God which he's talking about can neither be proven to exist or to not exist, the syllogism must itself be absolutely perfect. If it contains any errors, then it means nothing what-so-ever.

From my perspective, I may be wrong, but Prismatic's claim that absolute perfection is impossible seems ironic, because for his argument to be correct and logically refute the existence of a perfect God, in the form of a syllogism, for which the general consensus is that the God which he's talking about can neither be proven to exist or to not exist, the syllogism must itself be absolutely perfect. If it contains any errors, then it means nothing what-so-ever.

The entire system is founded on the idea of trial and error, reactions with results in multiple directions, evolution.

What is "perfect" is when one understands the system fully and how one interacts with it and has the ability to appreciate it for what it is with also seeking to execute/understand what can and what could be through a collective effort.

We see it in movies subliminaly all the time, movies and art being a reflection of our current collective state, they are the options and paths we have available to us, a language of the subconscious, through art, think of movies as options of reality based upon universal laws and understanding of those laws and self.

Mankind creates art and language and stays with what is current out of fear and a lack of knowing/understanding what path to pursue next, collectively. Being afraid of the unknown possibilities and also not wanting to accept responsibility of being a "god" once aligned in understanding of multiple facets based off of reality and self. Trapped in comfort. "Ignorance is bliss" but what one does not know, may kill them.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note there are many types of gods, weak, strong, monkey god, elephant gods, the many gods of the Greeks and other cultures.For all the above gods, there is one master of all gods, i.e. GOD [with a Capital G], the only and 100% perfect God.

This is a very Abrahamic concept and even in that a limited one. At some point in some theologies God became this mathematically perfect being. But many religions have even their chief Gods, like Zeus say, being tempermental, changing their mind, having tantrums, etc. And at some point being 'more powerful than anything else and beyond our understanding' became 'can do anything at all, even if it seems or is illogical, knows everything and so on, all the omni-characteristics. Equating this poor turning in part of a few religions theologies is misrepresenting religion and theism as a whole.

Note the Abrahamic believers comprised of appx 60% of the world's population. The Abrahamic God by default [as inferred from believers] is the ontological absolutely perfect God.

The one-up principle is very generic to human beings, thus it is inevitable to avoid infinity nonsense, the ceiling is the ontological God, i.e "a god than which no greater can exists"

Even among the many Greek gods, Zeus is claimed by many to the most powerful, i.e. the one-up principle in effect here, albeit Zeus is not attributed to be perfect.

For Shankara, Brahman is the one and only reality. Brahman is Being, Consciousness, and Bliss. Brahman is infinite, formless, and perfect. Brahman is all-inclusive and all-perceiving. Brahman is the eternal and unchanging Self.http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/shankara.html

I understand there are many who do NOT claim the only god they believe is absolutely perfect. I have no issues with such claims and their numbers and very marginal.

My main intention to prove God is an impossibility to be real is targeted at the Islamic God. But to do so, I have to prove God in principle is an impossibility as real.If God is an impossibility to be real, then there is no divine grounds for Islam to stand on.Thus Muslims cannot insist there is a real God that commands them [within the Quran] to kill, dominate/suppress non-Muslims in the name of a real God. In this case, no Muslim will be inspired and influenced by his Allah to kill non-Muslims.The solution is there will then be ZERO God-commanded killings of non-believers.

Of course some evil prone Muslims will still kill but they cannot claim it is from a real God which is an illusion. They will be like other believers, Buddhists, Christians, etc., who killed because of their own inherent nature and not because the religion ordered them to kill non-believers. This is then not a theological-based problem but rather a political and judiciary issue.

Last edited by Prismatic567 on Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

The concept of a supreme God, or force, is not monolithic to the Judeo-Christian tradition, which you seem to argue against.

The Hindu version of the ultimate (or supreme) God, called "Brahman", has some differing characteristics. Additionally, the Taoist "Dao" or "Way" differs from Yahweh (the Judeo-Christian God).

There isn't just one, concrete or absolute definition of God. There is leeway in regards to varying interpretations of some of his attributes.

Note my response above where Brahman is claimed to be perfect.

The Tao is claimed to be absolute.

The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar. 'In ritual', say the Analects, 'it is harmony with Nature that is prized.'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)#Relation_of_humanity_to_the_Absolute

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Perfection is an impossibility,God imperatively must be absolutely perfect.Therefore God is an impossibility.

or that you aren't conceiving a version of perfection that meets the criteria for you to believe perfection to be possible.

Note I stated two types of perfection above, i.e. relative and absolute.Relative perfection is possible in reality but not absolute perfect which is limited to reason and thoughts only.

A theist would not want a god that is less perfect, since in this case his/her god would be inferior to other gods which are more perfect or an ontological God, i.e. a god than which no greater perfection can be conceived.

Absolute perfection is an impossibility. Since God [by definition] imperatively must be absolutely perfect, therefore God is an impossibility.

You are not understanding the full context of what they mean by "perfection" and "god". You aren't understanding their language and description, it's metaphorical, not literal.

God is by recognizing self and how to manifest self into reality by will to the extent of what universal law applies. It is a state of balance for self, an individual to appreciate what is and also appreciate what can or could be based off of subjectivity/unique diversity.......

Not sure which definition of God you are referring to.

Note I explained above, the God I am referring to is the one monotheistic God believed by Jews, Christians, Muslims. The Abrahamic believers comprised >50% of the world's population.

An Abrahamic believers believe their God is literally real to the extent of delivering God's message and commands to chosen prophets and messengers that culminated in the present holy texts of the respective religion.Most Christians and Muslims also believer there is a real God who answers their prayers and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life on Judgment Day.Where do you get the idea, the Abrahamic believers believe their God is metaphorical?

On top of the above we have Brahman of Hinduism and Tao of Taoism which are defined as Absolute, thus implied perfect.

From my perspective, I may be wrong, but Prismatic's claim that absolute perfection is impossible seems ironic, because for his argument to be correct and logically refute the existence of a perfect God, in the form of a syllogism, for which the general consensus is that the God which he's talking about can neither be proven to exist or to not exist, the syllogism must itself be absolutely perfect. If it contains any errors, then it means nothing what-so-ever.

Your point is moot.No fallible human can be absolutely perfect.

Point is my syllogism is logically sound, relatively perfect and acceptable by all rational people.

Note,must the statement "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" be absolutely perfect in order to be accepted by rational people?

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

One of the main point of my OP 'God is an Impossibility to be Real' is that the idea of God is triggered by a very desperate psychological existential crisis.

The psychological basis of the idea of God has created and triggered loads of evil, violent and negative acts committed on humanity by zealous believers in the name of an illusory God.

Rationally the solution [eliminate theistic based evils] is to resolve the root cause which is psychological within the believers. Thus theists must be encouraged to reflect upon their own psychological impulses triggered by the inherent existential crisis, i.e. Know Thyself (Socrates).

Think about it, what is the real significant purpose/reason for any theists to believe in a God [illusory]?

Morality? nah.. that is very limited where theistic religions condone evil acts.Charity? do we really need religion to do this?Peace? my foot! religions are the major reasons for many wars in the past.What else?

The real reason for theism is a desperate psychological defense mechanism within the believers to deal with an inherent existential crisis.

Throughout history many has taken the non-theistic path to resolve the inherent existential crisis, note Buddhism and other non-theistic approaches with an ideology that do not condone any evil nor violent acts.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Point is my syllogism is logically sound, relatively perfect and acceptable by all rational people.

Are you saying here that it is irrational to reject your argument? The grounds upon which others have disagreed with your argument are well documented to say the least. You reject all of those grounds, but that doesn't mean they are invalid.

Note,must the statement "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" be absolutely perfect in order to be accepted by rational people?

What point are you trying to make here? You have created a rule that absolute perfection is an impossibility, but that claim doesn't seem well supported. The problem you have is that the perception of perfection can be subjective.

Point is my syllogism is logically sound, relatively perfect and acceptable by all rational people.

Are you saying here that it is irrational to reject your argument? The grounds upon which others have disagreed with your argument are well documented to say the least. You reject all of those grounds, but that doesn't mean they are invalid.

Note the only "currency" valid here is sound arguments or counter-arguments.

Yes, I noted there are many disagreements but so far no one has brought forth any convincing sound counter-arguments.

If there are any reasonable unresolved counter-arguments I would have kept at it or bring it up. I have not ignored, avoided or ran away from any counter-arguments presented here.

Note,must the statement "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" be absolutely perfect in order to be accepted by rational people?

What point are you trying to make here? You have created a rule that absolute perfection is an impossibility, but that claim doesn't seem well supported. The problem you have is that the perception of perfection can be subjective.

My point is my argument is similar to "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" which is acceptable as rational and this do not need to be an absolutely perfect statement.

There are are two perspectives to 'perfection' i.e.

1. relative perfection and 2. absolute perfection.

Once there were the perfect scores within gymnastics and there are still perfect scores happening in many sports, diving, ten-pin bowling, darts, archery, etc. If you score 100/100 in an objective test, that is a perfect score. But these are only relative-perfect scores conditioned by the criteria used.

In contrast, with God [as believed by theists, not me] there is no room for relative perfection but the only valid property is that of absolute perfection, i.e. unconditioned by nothing relative which is non-God.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note the Abrahamic believers comprised of appx 60% of the world's population. The Abrahamic God by default [as inferred from believers] is the ontological absolutely perfect God.

1) not all Abrahamists believe that God is mathematically perfect. 2) you are making a bizarre argument based on popularity. Christians are right about what a God would be like if one existed, though I believe no God exists. 2) The sentence bolded above makes no sense.

The one-up principle is very generic to human beings, thus it is inevitable to avoid infinity nonsense, the ceiling is the ontological God, i.e "a god than which no greater can exists"

That may make sense to you, but it is not how theists must believe in a God and they don't. I know theists who do not have this belief.

Even among the many Greek gods, Zeus is claimed by many to the most powerful, i.e. the one-up principle in effect here, albeit Zeus is not attributed to be perfect.

Yah, exactly. albeit....and what you said after was the precise reason I brought up that Deity.

Sure, though you just simplified one of the most complex religions. Many Hindus never think about Brahman or consider Brahman their God. I know this from direct experience in India. And note also that ultimate reality means that there is nothing behind it, deeper. That does not mean that Brahman can lift stones that he makes heavier than he can lift them. It means there is no reality beyond Brahman.

For Shankara, Brahman is the one and only reality. Brahman is Being, Consciousness, and Bliss. Brahman is infinite, formless, and perfect. Brahman is all-inclusive and all-perceiving. Brahman is the eternal and unchanging Self.http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/shankara.html

Yes, sometimes the word perfect is used. Just as in romance people say things like there is no one more beautiful than you and so on. It is only when the bean counter theologians come in that this is taken to mean some kind of mathematical perfection.

I understand there are many who do NOT claim the only god they believe is absolutely perfect. I have no issues with such claims and their numbers and very marginal.

[/quote]Again an argument from popularity. And I disagree. Many people when pressed by atheists will assert a kind of mathematical perfection. But in general their practices, scriptures and behavior in general show that they think God needs information they can give, that they need to ask for things -w hich a perfect God would know they need- that their God is tempermental, gets frustrated, gets angry, Jesus feels betrayed for a while on the Cross, God plays games with the Devil and more.

And sure, the Abrahamic religions have great sway. So

we are supposed to judge theism based on the violent monotheisms that have been involved in colonialism and specfically tried to wipe out all other beliefs. Those of the theisms were are supposed to

first respect as being theism

then focus on only the parts that fit your thesis

then judge the other religions as not as good

then point out that theism is bad based on the violent religions?

Is that your thesis and logical approach?

And yes, I get that your reason is you want to attack Islam. And in doing so you think y ou have to prove God does not exist. So to do this you have to use Allah as a model. And so you have to say first that that is the real God, then show that God is not real.

Note I explained above, the God I am referring to is the one monotheistic God believed by Jews, Christians, Muslims. The Abrahamic believers comprised >50% of the world's population.

An Abrahamic believers believe their God is literally real to the extent of delivering God's message and commands to chosen prophets and messengers that culminated in the present holy texts of the respective religion.Most Christians and Muslims also believer there is a real God who answers their prayers and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life on Judgment Day.Where do you get the idea, the Abrahamic believers believe their God is metaphorical?

On top of the above we have Brahman of Hinduism and Tao of Taoism which are defined as Absolute, thus implied perfect.

Yes, I understand what you are referring to and I am referring to the what should be obvious and most common misconception of the God and texts you are trying to understand or prove a point against.

The idea of perfection is an idea that is representative of the whole of humanity, not a one single person but the first step to achieving the "utopia" is by the first step of a one person in discovery of self, it starts small. I understand that 50% or more of the population worships an external deity outside of the self and monotheism but they have missed the point, the messages, which are metaphors and obvious expressions of human psyche in that time period just like art is expression for our psyche today. Art and expression are the mirror of the mind, you want to understand the mind? Then you go to art in any time period, literature, etc, to understand their perception and time frame. So basically, the texts aren't all completely wrong but the thinking used to understand them is. Just like using a hammer as a screwdriver, it doesn't work as the intended method of usage for this tool.

If you turn on a movie or TV show, you can pickup the messages and see it's the same thing as before as today, because we have not evolved much in terms of psyche and spirituality but now we are beginning to understand finally so maybe in the next few hundred years we will finally create a new cycle, one not based on ignorance and rushing to conclusions like the mass populace tends to do. Aquaman and hero movies, horror movies, comedies, etc. They are tools of inspiration and expression of self, by telling a /story/ and not all the time are they in the /literal/ sense or style of thinking, sometimes the messages are subliminal and metaphorical, it's symbolism that represents much more.

In other words, how do you hope to prove a point when lacking in understanding or a full perception? You can't. You're making a point against something that doesn't exist as the way you think it does but instead it's a point towards mankinds lack of understanding and even knowing of this.

The current "understanding" of religion/mythology is based off of of a misconception of them being the representations of /literal/ figures, when it's actually /metaphor/ for themselves as individuals and as a species (the people in that time period) and the evils/goods of the ego of which /god is depicted as the subconscious/ serves as the "divine" messenger between both sides of ego, the commandments are a guide of self to avoid self judgement/criticism painted in a literal style to guide man to this perception/state of "god" and how to control/depict or avoid the ego as Jesus or satan, simple summed up representations of characteristics of ego based on what environment pulls out of a man instinctually, it's a guide on how to control ones ego and stay disciplined.

Yes and in the scripture it is meaning deliver "gods" message as meaning, to express psyche and be self through controlling ones own manifested/disciplined ego. They simply do not understand such because the wrong deciphering of the texts has been taught. You won't find literal objective evidence for a subjective interpretation/writing of self. Do you understand?

Yes, just because they believe it doesn't make it so in the literal sense of which they deem or believe it. Mankind is caught in a loop of ignorance and misunderstanding. That book was supposed to be used as a tool to self enlightenment, switch the view and ones thinking and they may see such.

It isn't just my idea, it is so. I am looking at the texts in the only way they make sense, not in a /literal/ way of thinking or observation/proof seeking. They're keys to self and individual enlightenment/state of perception, through depiction of symbols, summaries, steps, etc.

I am just stating the fact of the matter, people have been arguing over something that doesn't exist in the way of which they are trying to view or understand it for the past 100s and 1000s of years. I'm here to clear up the confusion of those texts, mythology and religious scripture.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

My point is my argument is similar to "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" which is acceptable as rational and this do not need to be an absolutely perfect statement.

Hmm... The statement “a square circle” is an oxymoron. Your argument is an inductive proposition, they are completely different, they aren't even similar semantically. You don't believe that God exists, that's fine, but to claim that it is impossible for God to exist requires more than just belief, you need to demonstrate that claim, which I don't think your argument does... You gave it go, but ultimately your argument raises more questions than it answers, as can be seen by the lengthy debate, across different philosophy forums. I know you believe you've hit the nail on the head, but you haven't IMV.

In contrast, with God [as believed by theists, not me] there is no room for relative perfection but the only valid property is that of absolute perfection, i.e. unconditioned by nothing relative which is non-God.

For arguments sake, if there is a God that is absolutely perfect, why do you think it would be absolutely perfect? Could it have something to do with the attributes it possesses?

My point is my argument is similar to "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" which is acceptable as rational and this do not need to be an absolutely perfect statement.

Hmm... The statement “a square circle” is an oxymoron.

Though some oxymorons have turned out to be true. Like particle wave duality. A particle wave would have been considered an oxymoron, until it seemed to be the case. Even worse with his example is that squares can't be real. A four 'sided' thing with sides that extend only in one direction, length, but have no width?

So, even a circle cannot be real.

And then his analogy is based on comparing geometry to what it seems to me is another kind of 'thing'.

And then that he must assume, as he says above, that God is perfect because Muslims believe that, so in his argument all theists need to have perfect Gods, because it is important to disprove Islam.

Prismatic567 wrote:Note the Abrahamic believers comprised of appx 60% of the world's population. The Abrahamic God by default [as inferred from believers] is the ontological absolutely perfect God.

1) not all Abrahamists believe that God is mathematically perfect. 2) you are making a bizarre argument based on popularity. Christians are right about what a God would be like if one existed, though I believe no God exists. 2) The sentence bolded above makes no sense.

We have argued the above point in the 'Who is a Christian' thread.A Christian is one who had surrendered his Will to God via Jesus and the Gospels.

If no God, no Gospels, that is a pseudo Christian.

Note at the highest level of theological consideration, God is attributed with 'perfection' note St. Anselm, Descartes, and others.

Yes, not ALL Christians bothered about the term 'perfect' and whatever omni, but when cornered and push, they will easily agree with perfect [in everything not only mathematically].

If a Christian or other theists are cornered with the proposition, "if your god is not the most perfect, superior god, then your inferior God could be forced to eat shit by the most another superior God [Islamic God for example] that exists over your God" that will get their attention to claim their God is most superior and perfect.

In this case, the Christian will surely insist his God is the most perfect and superior that which no greater can exists. This is just a matter of mental choice and so easy literally, thus every theist when cornered in such a situation will opt for the most perfect and superior God.

The one-up principle is very generic to human beings, thus it is inevitable to avoid infinity nonsense, the ceiling is the ontological God, i.e "a god than which no greater can exists"

That may make sense to you, but it is not how theists must believe in a God and they don't. I know theists who do not have this belief.

Try posing the above 'eat shit' challenge to the Christians you know, I bet 99% will opt for the absolute perfect God as St. Anselm and Descartes had presented.

Even among the many Greek gods, Zeus is claimed by many to the most powerful, i.e. the one-up principle in effect here, albeit Zeus is not attributed to be perfect.

Yah, exactly. albeit....and what you said after was the precise reason I brought up that Deity.

Note I am highlighting the one-up principle in this case. The Greek gods are not a serious issue for me and I don't think many would believe in these Greek gods at present.

Sure, though you just simplified one of the most complex religions. Many Hindus never think about Brahman or consider Brahman their God. I know this from direct experience in India. And note also that ultimate reality means that there is nothing behind it, deeper. That does not mean that Brahman can lift stones that he makes heavier than he can lift them. It means there is no reality beyond Brahman.

The majority of Hindu religions believe in Brahman as the ultimate God and the Absolute.The majority of lay Hindus will definitely be driven by the one-up principle to feel secure and thus accept Brahman to be perfect.

For Shankara, Brahman is the one and only reality. Brahman is Being, Consciousness, and Bliss. Brahman is infinite, formless, and perfect. Brahman is all-inclusive and all-perceiving. Brahman is the eternal and unchanging Self.http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/shankara.html

Yes, sometimes the word perfect is used. Just as in romance people say things like there is no one more beautiful than you and so on. It is only when the bean counter theologians come in that this is taken to mean some kind of mathematical perfection.

It is not sometimes.Where it counts, they will invoke the term perfection, absolute, ultimate, most superior etc.

I understand there are many who do NOT claim the only god they believe is absolutely perfect. I have no issues with such claims and their numbers and very marginal.

Again an argument from popularity. And I disagree. Many people when pressed by atheists will assert a kind of mathematical perfection. But in general their practices, scriptures and behavior in general show that they think God needs information they can give, that they need to ask for things -which a perfect God would know they need- that their God is tempermental, gets frustrated, gets angry, Jesus feels betrayed for a while on the Cross, God plays games with the Devil and more.

And sure, the Abrahamic religions have great sway. So

we are supposed to judge theism based on the violent monotheisms that have been involved in colonialism and specfically tried to wipe out all other beliefs. Those of the theisms were are supposed to

first respect as being theism

then focus on only the parts that fit your thesis

then judge the other religions as not as good

then point out that theism is bad based on the violent religions?

Is that your thesis and logical approach?

Whatever God did or will do, God is still revered as perfect, else they will not have the assurance their God will deliver to heaven with eternal. Otherwise another superior God could override their God and divert them to Hell.

And yes, I get that your reason is you want to attack Islam. And in doing so you think you have to prove God does not exist. So to do this you have to use Allah as a model. And so you have to say first that that is the real God, then show that God is not real.I mean, seriously this is a joke.

My main focus in on Islam's evil elements.I believe the most effective approach to deal with the evil of Islam is to prove God is an impossibility.My apologies to other theists but I have highlighted to theists there are non-theistic approaches to deal with the inherent existential crisis and its pains without potential evil and violent elements.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Note I explained above, the God I am referring to is the one monotheistic God believed by Jews, Christians, Muslims. The Abrahamic believers comprised >50% of the world's population.

An Abrahamic believers believe their God is literally real to the extent of delivering God's message and commands to chosen prophets and messengers that culminated in the present holy texts of the respective religion.Most Christians and Muslims also believer there is a real God who answers their prayers and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life on Judgment Day.Where do you get the idea, the Abrahamic believers believe their God is metaphorical?

On top of the above we have Brahman of Hinduism and Tao of Taoism which are defined as Absolute, thus implied perfect.

Yes, I understand what you are referring to and I am referring to the what should be obvious and most common misconception of the God and texts you are trying to understand or prove a point against.

I am just stating the fact of the matter, people have been arguing over something that doesn't exist in the way of which they are trying to view or understand it for the past 100s and 1000s of years. I'm here to clear up the confusion of those texts, mythology and religious scripture.

Btw, my argument is based on what current theists [especially the Abrahamic] are believing what God is.

The current idea of God inevitable lead to a perfect, most superior and absolute God which are stated and implied in their holy texts.

These theists believed in a real God, i.e. so real where the real God delivered his message and command via prophets and messengers that all humans must adhere to and obey. Some of these God's messages include commanding the believer to kill non-believers and this is very evident, i.e.https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

Therefore when we prove God is an impossibility to be real, then, there is no real God who delivered any texts via humans. Thus there is no God to command believers to kill non-believers.

If you argue for God like you do above, you will allow room for theists to creep back to their holy texts, the Bible, Quran or Torah, etc.

My argument is a 100% completely cut off from any chance of any one relying on God's words to kill non-believers as a divine duty.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

My point is my argument is similar to "a square-circle is an impossibility to be real" which is acceptable as rational and this do not need to be an absolutely perfect statement.

Hmm... The statement “a square circle” is an oxymoron. Your argument is an inductive proposition, they are completely different, they aren't even similar semantically. You don't believe that God exists, that's fine, but to claim that it is impossible for God to exist requires more than just belief, you need to demonstrate that claim, which I don't think your argument does... You gave it go, but ultimately your argument raises more questions than it answers, as can be seen by the lengthy debate, across different philosophy forums. I know you believe you've hit the nail on the head, but you haven't IMV.

In contrast, with God [as believed by theists, not me] there is no room for relative perfection but the only valid property is that of absolute perfection, i.e. unconditioned by nothing relative which is non-God.

For arguments sake, if there is a God that is absolutely perfect, why do you think it would be absolutely perfect? Could it have something to do with the attributes it possesses?

I have argued logically, soundly and rationally God is an impossibility to be real.

I have also topped it up with why the majority of humans have the instincts to believe in a God which is illusory and irrational. The reason is psychological, i.e. driven by an inherent existential crisis. If you look at it from this psychological angle, my argument will make sense.

In addition, there are non-theistic approaches that had been around for a long time that deal with the inherent existential crisis without any elements of evil or violence.

In the long run, my argument is positive to humanity in the sense that there will be ZERO theistic driven [God inspired] evil and violent acts. Point is this proposal will take quite some time [50, 100, 150 or > years] to be produce results.

Humans [naturally born evil prone] will continue to commit evil and violent acts, but that would be a secular issue to be dealt with.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

It's true that many conventional worshippers of God attribute Him with perfection.

But I am not a conventional theist and there are many other such theists, like myself, who will tell you that God does not have to "perfect", whatever that may mean.

Note, it is not my belief.. but if you encounter Islam and claim you are a theist, Islam by its inherent nature will condemn your God as inferior plus various derogatory remarks thrown in. If you can accept that, there is no issue with me.

What will you do if theistic Islamists threaten to kill you and your future generations because you disbelieve in their more superior God and opt to believe in a less superior or perfect god.What would be your solution for the future generations?Your insistence your God and God in general exists will actually feed the flame of the Islamist aggression. In this case, you are very selfish for your own salvation or psychological insecurity, i.e. with no concern for the future generations.

I would propose you sacrifice [don't be selfish], learn about your own inherent existential psychology and chop off theism at its roots [with the OP argument] so that the Islamists will not have any foundation to make their claim and obedience to kill non-believers as a divine duty to gain Allah's favor.

This is win-win for all since it will only involve a mental change in rational consideration on yours and the Islamists part and all can then avoid theistic-based evil and violence.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Note I explained above, the God I am referring to is the one monotheistic God believed by Jews, Christians, Muslims. The Abrahamic believers comprised >50% of the world's population.

An Abrahamic believers believe their God is literally real to the extent of delivering God's message and commands to chosen prophets and messengers that culminated in the present holy texts of the respective religion.Most Christians and Muslims also believer there is a real God who answers their prayers and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life on Judgment Day.Where do you get the idea, the Abrahamic believers believe their God is metaphorical?

On top of the above we have Brahman of Hinduism and Tao of Taoism which are defined as Absolute, thus implied perfect.

Yes, I understand what you are referring to and I am referring to the what should be obvious and most common misconception of the God and texts you are trying to understand or prove a point against.

I am just stating the fact of the matter, people have been arguing over something that doesn't exist in the way of which they are trying to view or understand it for the past 100s and 1000s of years. I'm here to clear up the confusion of those texts, mythology and religious scripture.

Btw, my argument is based on what current theists [especially the Abrahamic] are believing what God is.

The current idea of God inevitable lead to a perfect, most superior and absolute God which are stated and implied in their holy texts.

These theists believed in a real God, i.e. so real where the real God delivered his message and command via prophets and messengers that all humans must adhere to and obey. Some of these God's messages include commanding the believer to kill non-believers and this is very evident, i.e.https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

Therefore when we prove God is an impossibility to be real, then, there is no real God who delivered any texts via humans. Thus there is no God to command believers to kill non-believers.

If you argue for God like you do above, you will allow room for theists to creep back to their holy texts, the Bible, Quran or Torah, etc.

My argument is a 100% completely cut off from any chance of any one relying on God's words to kill non-believers as a divine duty.

I think what they meant by saying to kill unbelievers, is that to kill paganism or other enemies of war, the texts also could have been altered, should understand the context of when it was the written, that stuff should be removed from modern texts. It's a matter of common sense to weed out what is relevant and what is not based off of a perception of time now Vs then.

I don't think the texts mean a real god I think that is people's misinterpretation of what the text originally is saying.

God is a balance between consciousness and subconscious, as a collective. God has the ability to manifest with satan and/or Jesus attributes based on environment and power of will. Dark and light sides of subconsciousness, the state of duality that evolved into us, it's all just unique language and symbolism of a reoccurring message of duality evolving, which is "god" manifesting into and as all life and the whole design at the same time.

The basic Abrahamic belief for the common man is supposed to be based off of a common sense that appears to not be so common anymore.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Prismatic wrote:Btw, my argument is based on what current theists [especially the Abrahamic] are believing what God is.

The current idea of God inevitable lead to a perfect, most superior and absolute God which are stated and implied in their holy texts.

These theists believed in a real God, i.e. so real where the real God delivered his message and command via prophets and messengers that all humans must adhere to and obey. Some of these God's messages include commanding the believer to kill non-believers and this is very evident, i.e.https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

Therefore when we prove God is an impossibility to be real, then, there is no real God who delivered any texts via humans. Thus there is no God to command believers to kill non-believers.

If you argue for God like you do above, you will allow room for theists to creep back to their holy texts, the Bible, Quran or Torah, etc.

My argument is a 100% completely cut off from any chance of any one relying on God's words to kill non-believers as a divine duty.

Artimas wrote:I think what they meant by saying to kill unbelievers, is that to kill paganism or other enemies of war, the texts also could have been altered, should understand the context of when it was the written, that stuff should be removed from modern texts. It's a matter of common sense to weed out what is relevant and what is not based off of a perception of time now Vs then.

I don't think the texts mean a real god I think that is people's misinterpretation of what the text originally is saying.

God is a balance between consciousness and subconscious, as a collective. God has the ability to manifest with satan and/or Jesus attributes based on environment and power of will. Dark and light sides of subconsciousness, the state of duality that evolved into us, it's all just unique language and symbolism of a reoccurring message of duality evolving, which is "god" manifesting into and as all life and the whole design at the same time.

The basic Abrahamic belief for the common man is supposed to be based off of a common sense that appears to not be so common anymore.

Btw, I spent 3 years on a full time basis studying, researching and analyzing the Quran, plus learning basic Quranic Arabic. Thus what I have stated about Islam is more reasonable and justified than your guesses.

God is a balance between consciousness and subconscious, as a collective.It is not what you think God should be but rather what is Islam is very specifically stated in the Quran which is supposedly perfected by God and is immutable.Given the psychology of existing theists I don't believe your argument will have any influence on the majority of Muslims and other fundamental theists.

As I had argued, if you keep the idea of God alive in some ways, it will definitely provide room for the Islamists [a significant SOME] to hang on to the idea of God to soothe their psychological desperation. Thus their obligation [divine duty] is to carry out the commands of their God based on the immutable commands of their perfect and most superior God in exchange for a promise they will avoid Hell and enter Paradise with eternal life.

When God is an impossibility to be real, the Islamists will have no grounds to insist there is a real God which delivered to them a perfect immutable holy texts to be complied with. Thus we eliminate any possibility of theistic-based evils and violence [100% ZERO] as commanded by a real God.

When it is proven God is an impossibility to be real, and if anyone commit evil or violent acts, then it cannot be from a God [since an impossibility] thus the evil is from the person[s] inherent evil nature which will have to be dealt with by various means.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.